On 6/27/11 1:54 PM, "Ben Niven-Jenkins" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Reinaldo,
>
> On 27 Jun 2011, at 17:28, Reinaldo Penno wrote:
>
>> I second having 1:1 relationship. We explored having an IP address in more
>> than one PID during the protocol design and there were some difficult cases.
>>
>> Having said that, a _private_ IPv4 can and would certainly appear in more
>> than one PID if these represent different VRFs. It goes back to some of the
>> gaps identified in penno-cdn
>
> Probably something to pick up and discuss in more depth at a later date
> probably but IMO different VRFs are different networks with different
> topologies and should probably be best represented by independent ALTO network
> maps.
They could, but you will loose in terms localization. Meaning different
clients (whether P2P or CDN) in overlapping networks can not use resources
of another.
>
> It's not just restricted to private IP addresses either if one considers the
> cases of extranet VPNs or of CDNs that use multiple topology maps.
Agreed. I believe it is something we should take up. I touched on many of
these points in
http://potaroo.net/ietf/all-ids/draft-penno-alto-ipv4v6-00.txt
>
> Ben
>
_______________________________________________
alto mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
